Licensing Falsehood: Naturopathy in NYT and the Charity of Shallow Reporting, 2011-02-21

here, I cite from a recent New York Times article on naturopathy in Colorado [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Dan Frosch reports in "Colorado Faces a Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-21]:

"in Colorado [...]  no regulatory system for naturopaths exists [...] Marc Cooper [...] sits on the board of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, which has proposed a bill this year that would allow naturopaths to get licenses and create training and treatment requirements for practitioners [...] 'once somebody fully understands what our medical training is and what we actually do, they look at us and say, Oh, my gosh, I didn’t realize that' he said [...] naturopaths [...] 'go to naturopathic medical school' [...per] Karen Howard, executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...with] completion of a four-year accredited, specialized school, passing an exam and a certain amount of clinical training [...and] contend that it is dangerously easy to get a certificate that shows expertise in naturopathy and people need some way of discerning between a knowledgeable naturopath and a quack [...] the Colorado proposal would prohibit people who did not attend one of the schools from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...the medical field says] 'they want to diagnose medical conditions, and we don’t believe they are qualified and that they have the education to do that [...and] there is little evidence naturopathy is either safe or effective [...] said Diana Protopapa [...of] the Colorado Medical Society [I agree with CMS]."

Note: wow, the quacks [naturopathy] are calling their fellow quacks [naturopathy] quacks and denying that they are all birds of the same feather.

002. now, I'm quite familiar with the requirements and contents of naturopathy -- that is what this blog talks about -- so lets talk about it, broadly [I went to one of those AANP-affiliated schools, I'm quite familiar]:

so, as the article states, once somebody "fully understands" naturopathy, you would say "oh, my gosh."  That is not because you'd be impressed, though.  It would be because you'd be wide-eyed with naturopathy's absurdity.  But, you'd actually have to have expertise in science, medicine, skepticism, and propaganda.

NYTs didn't report on that central absurdity, and that's quite a bit of charity for naturopathy -- to such an extent that this article reads like a press release.  Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that NDs are medically trained at all, they are naturopathically trained.  Where else is an article of faith equated with a scientific fact, and archaic science-ejected ideas called science-based?

the exam and specialized schooling for NDs / NMDs is interesting: it requires that the hugely science-ejected be falsely labeled science and medically relevant, and it also requires that you disguise that reality.

and naturopathy's knowledge is interesting to the extent that it is quackery overall: claiming as safe and effective the truly science-ejected archaic.

the reporter provides no accurate context regarding these realities about the naturopathic, and naturopaths won't either, while those who are knowledgeable about it watch the absurdity increase its market.

people will still be buying the product under false premises: that which is placebo, like homeopathy, is sold as effective while truly science-destroyed, and that which is science-exterior will be sold as within a science-context even though not [their essential sectarian vitalism, supernaturalism and kind].

this goes for naturopathy clinically and in terms of its educational apparatus.

as I've said before, naturopathy is licensed falsehood.

Grant Jacobs at Sciblogs Schwacks Homeopathy in New Zealand (2011-02-21)

here, I cite from a great post about homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Grant Jacobs writes at Code For Life in "Message to Otago Daily Times: Homeopath is Not a Sound Career Option*" (2011-02-21):

"why on earth has the [...] Otago Daily Times [...] presented an homeopath in one of it’s on-going series of snapshots of people in different careers [...without] critical questioning? [...without] critically judging what they present [...] should a journalist not question the creditability of homeopathy in questioning a homeopath? Should this even be offered as a sound career option on a careers page? [...he says] yes to the first, no to the second [...because it is] nonsense [...] homeopathic remedies contain none of the proposed active ingredient in them. Nothing, nada, nil [...they're] completely diluted [...it's] a ruse [...] homeopathy is a sham. It’s utter bunkum [...] any homeopath presenting their remedies as having an effect beyond placebo is outside of good business ethics, never mind medical ones [...it's] a historic quackery [...] homeopathy is bunk."

002. well, a couple of things:

I totally agree that homeopathy is junk.

you can criticize homeopathy based on its plausiblity, and also based on quality studies: it can't work, and not surprisingly it doesnt' work, respectively.

it is, for me, one of the most troubling things within North American naturopathy.

notice who sponsors North American naturopathy's textbooks, which are huge sources of homeopathy proponentry!

the so-called "science-based profession" that labels homeopathy a science, to this day.

SCNM's ND Messer - Emphasis: Homeopathy and Cancer

here, I cite from a SCNM web page regarding treating cancer with magic beans / unicorn tears aka homeopathy [see 001., below]:

001. SCNM writes in "Physician Bios" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"Stephen Messer, N.D., D.H.A.N.P Emphasis: homeopathy for acute disease, serious chronic disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis [...] Dr. Messer has been in continuous practice since graduating from National College of Natural Medicine in 1979, and is considered one of the premier homeopathic physicians, educators, and authors in the country [...] Dr. Messer completed homeopathic emphasis training with the International Foundation for Homeopathy, as well as the Eizayaga Homeopathic Seminar series. Dr. Messer was among the first naturopathic physicians in the United States to become board certified as a homeopathic specialist. He is a founder and past president of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians. He has been a board member of the National Center for Homeopathy from 1987-2008, and the Dean of the prestigious NCH summer school homeopathic training program [...] Dr. Messer is a Professor, and the Chair of Homeopathic Medicine at SCNM."

Note: wow.  Here's his bio.

ND Mittman - SCNM & AANMC's Big Kahuna Homeopath, and Remarkable Claims of Homeopathy's Efficacy

here, I cite from a recent NDNR article [see 001., below]; then from remarkable claims regarding homeopathic sugar pills [see 002., below]; and finally, how naturopathy is wedded to science-ejected ideas and absurd therapies [see 003., below]:

001. the article "Message From the President" (2011-02) in NDNR states:

"Paul Mittman, ND, EdD, DHANP currently serves as president of both Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences [SCNM] and the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC...] Dr. Mittman graduated from National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1985 [...] he was in private practice until joining the faculty of Southwest College as a professor of homeopathy in 1997 [...] Dr. Mittman is a recognized authority on naturopathic medicine [...who] integrates the foundations of naturopathic medicine with homeopathy and botanical medicine [...] he is a respected lecturer in the field of homeopathy [...and] former editor of Simillimum [naturopathy's homeopathy journal] and the New England Journal of Homeopathy."

Note: so, he's a big kahuna / authority when it comes to homeopathy.

002. SCNM and AANMC:

002.a. SCNM states in "Homeopathy" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"homeopathy is a remarkable [...] therapy that stimulates our natural ability to heal [coded vitalism...it] provoke[s] a healing reaction in the person [...] it is the healing reaction [coded vitalism] provoked by the homeopathic medicine that cures, not the medicine itself [...] it can gently and permanently cure diseases and restore health [...e.g.] coughs and earaches [...] autoimmune disease and cancer [...] a gentle yet effective way to cure illness [...] homeopathy alters our susceptibility to disease [...] the majority of known acute and chronic diseases can be treated successfully with homeopathy, including nearly all of the most common reasons why people seek medical treatment [...] homeopathy is really quite extraordinary [...] and amazingly effective for people of all ages."

Note: yes, they're claiming homeopathy's magic beans / unicorn tears are THAT effective -- that it cures cancer.  This is truly SICKENING.

002.b. AANMC states in "Become a Naturopathic Doctor" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"effective traditional therapies form the foundation of naturopathic treatment, while drawing on the tools of modern science [...] naturopathic doctors made [sp, 'may'] use [...] homeopathic medicines [...] homeopathy [...] in their supervised, hands-on experiences with patients, students learn to scientifically apply [...] homeopathic medicine [...] member institutions of the AANMC [...include] Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences [...] National University of Health Sciences."

Note: science, science, science.  How does one scientifically apply what science has demolished?

And in that document, AANMC also speaks of: "a healthy respect for the healing power of nature [...] a deep faith in the power of the body to heal itself" but, we're not clearly informed about this central naturopathic context.

But, ND Mittman has explained this science-ejected vitalistic context essential to naturopathy in quite a lot of detail (here, here).  He is, after all, an authority.

003. some deep revelations from ND Mittman in "Editorials: Naturopathic Medicine, Vitalism, and Homeopathy" (1997; Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients, #165, p.122-3)[which I own]:

"[Mittman writes about] how we define the core and essence of naturopathy to ourselves [...] Hahnemann's homeopathy linked the disturbed vital force to the diseased body, and D.D. Palmer's chiropractic saw the spine as a conduit for the 'innate wisdom' [both are vitalistic...] alternative medical practices stepped in and linked the healing power of nature with the human spirit [supernaturalism...] what forms the heart of our healing art [...we have] more than a belief in the healing power of nature [...we] directly stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [...per] working directly with chi, prana or the vital force [...] science and medicine have spent the last 500 years divorced from religion and spirituality. As naturopaths, we must openly acknowledge and unabashedly embrace our partnership with a higher power. The only way to accomplish this is to establish energetic [euphemism for vitalistic and spiritistic] therapies like homeopathy, Chinese and ayurvedic medicine and hydrotherapy at the center of our definition of naturopathy [...per] energy medicines, the practice of homeopathy [...] there is no philosophical conflict between homeopathy and naturopathic medicine. In fact, homeopathy is probably the clearest example of the healing power of nature [...] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians gave us a clear definition of naturopathic medicine [...] patients get well because their healing begins at the deepest level of being - at the point where the body and its animating spirit meet [...per] the highest ideal of cure [...] Paul Mittman, ND, DHANP,  from The Best of Naturopathic Medicine Anthology 1996,  Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine Press.  Dr. Mittman graduated from National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1985, after which he served as staff physician at the Portland Natural Clinic until 1990, when he began his private practice in Connecticut. Dr. Mittman has served on the editorial board of the New England Journal of Homeopathy and frequently lectures both  nationally and internationally on homeopathy. He serves as a board member on the Connecticut Society of  Naturopathic Physicians as well as the Homeopathic Community Council [p.123]."

Note: again, big kahuna homeopath ND.  Working directly with a figmentation.  Must be hard to measure, therein.  I'm sure therein, it's okay to cut a lot of corners and just settle on deciding 'yep, another case cured.'

Orac recently blogged at Respectful Insolence in a post titled "You Can't Have Naturopathy Without Homeopathy" (2011-01-28), which reminded me of this 1997 article.

Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy: Unicorn Tears

here, I briefly cite from the always excellent "Bad Science" column at guardian.co.uk:

Ben Goldacre writes in "In Case of Overdose, Consult a Lifeguard" (2011-02-19):

"at midnight, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority [...] closed its consultation on how it should label homeopathy sugar pills [...] homeopathy pills don't work better than placebo dummy pills in trials [...and] are made by taking one drop of the original substance and diluting it in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

drops of water, then taking one drop of that solution, which is now just water, and shaking it near some pills, which you then buy to treat an illness [...] it's my view that quacks are welcome to be quacks [...] I have conducted my own consultation online. Here are the [labeling] suggestions [...] 'take as many as you like' since there are no ingredients [...] other suggestions include 'none', 'belief', 'false hopes', 'shattered dreams', and 'the tears of unicorns' [...] 'not to be taken seriously', 'in case of overdose, consult a lifeguard' [...] these label suggestions are clear, unambiguous, and they do not mislead anyone."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy considers homeopathy "science".

The Canadian Gang of Naturopathic Four and Their Science Absurdity (c. 2008)

here, I cite from the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy [BDDT-N] which claims the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny [see 001., below]; then, I decode that science-ejected idea [see 002., below]; and mention that it is not science [see 003., below]; then I muse [see 004., below]:

001. the BDDT-N hosts the document "Submission to: Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council"(2008-11-12) [vsc 2011-02-18] which states [I'm not sure this document is permanently archived by the provincial government, but that is likely]:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...including principle #2] recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual (the healing power of nature) [SHAI-HPN...] stimulate the self-healing mechanisms (vis medicatrix naturae) [SHM-VMN...or as #1] the healing power of nature: naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent healing process [IHP] in the person that is ordered and intelligent. The body is capable of healing itself. The role of the naturopathic doctor is to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery and to facilitate and augment this inherent natural tendency of the body [...] stimulate the healing power of nature with therapies like homeopathy and hydrotherapy."

Note: what's fascinating is what isn't mentioned.  Nowhere in this document do I find the terms "vital", "force", or "spirit".  But, SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny, be objective fact, and obviously is essential to 'the naturopathic'.  The document states this is a "joint submission by CCNM, BDDT-N, OAND, CAND" and in fact has the signatures of the principals of those arms of Canadanian naturopathy within it.

There are further science claims upon 'the naturopathic', including:

"NDs have training in the clinical sciences [...] the first year curriculum stresses the basic sciences [...] in second year, clinical science is stressed [...] NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Competencies [...] basic science related to IV therapy [...] basic science (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathology) [...] their scientific binomial name [...] program requirements for its degree or diploma of a minimum of 4,100 total hours in basic and clinical sciences [etc....] Part I of the NPLEX, the Basic Science Examinations [...] students are encouraged to take this portion of the examination as soon as they finish their basic science coursework [...] Part II, the Core Clinical Science Examination [...] beginning with the August 2007 NPLEX Exam administration, the Part II - Core Clinical Science Series will be integrated into a single examination that will include homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic physicians are primary health care practitioners, whose diverse techniques include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods [...] Michael Traub, ND [...] he remains a member of the AANP’s Scientific Affairs Committee."

So, science science science.  Yes, that is the claim that homeopathy specifically is a "clinical science".  Let's decode SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP via CAND's own 2009 publication, and see what it essentially is and what science says about it.

002. CAND and Lloyd, I. (ND CCNM 2002) write in "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 9781552787786, 2009)[available at Amazon.com for $40 about]:

"vitalism and holism represents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [p.029...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defenses [p.031]."

Note: so, there's the vitalism / vital force / HPN-VMN that is essential to naturopathy.  Truly, when they say "treat the cause" they are talking about a vitalistic context.  Truly, whatever language they choose -- and so often they choose to disguise their context in a crafty manner -- they are in the end vitalistically of context.

003. what science says about vitalism:

science says it is not science.

004. so, regarding this Canadian Gang of Naturopathic Four:

this is truly a feat of mislabeling on a grand scale [national!].  It is typical of the naturopathic.  How a hugely science-ejected sectarian claim supposedly survives scientific scrutiny as objective fact is truly a feat of cultic proportions.  Such is 'the science-ejected vitalism that dare not speak its name'.

Naturopathy - 'Non-Figment-Based Medicine is Harmful', 'Our Figments Are Scientific'

here, I search via google.com using the term ""first do no harm" "patient may be harmed" medicatrix" [without the exterior quotes; see 001., below]; then, I explain 'the gist' [see 002., below]:

001. the first-page results specific to naturopathy this 2011-02-17 include: 

Steriti, R. (ND SCNM) of Washington State; the State of Oregon; Thistle, D. (ND CCNM 1998) of Ontario, Canada; Nicolai, P.J. (ND Bastyr) of Oregon; Bradley, R.S. (ND NCNM) of Nebraska; Fung, S. (ND NCNM), Ortiz, N. (ND NCNM) of California; Troy, L. (ND Bastyr 2004) of Montana;

002. what are they talking about?

002.a. preponderantly:

what is being discussed is the naturopathic belief that if medicine does not take into account the vital force or energy that runs physiology, if it does not treat within the context of this figmentation first-and-foremost , then the patient will be harmed.

ND Bradley says it as "naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

002.b. a larger example from the above results:

002.b.1. from the Steriti page, we're told:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae)[HPN-VMN...] naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

now, Steriti went to SCNM, and that school explains HPN-VMN as (see the archival save from 2003):

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine."

quoting Hahnemann, homeopathy's founder, ND Steriti explains:

"vitalism: 'in the state of health a spirit-like vital force (dynamis) animating the material human organism reigns in supreme sovereignty' - paragraph 9 of the Orgenon [sp., Organon]."

002.c. science has profoundly eliminated such a figmentation [vitalism, supernaturalism, teleology] from the contents of science for just reason:

there is no evidence of a vital force or energy's immediate existence, and as an explanation it is not necessary to explain ANYTHING -- even as a place-filler.

but, take care you don't harm it by ignoring it...according to naturopathy.

of course, it gets better.

that State of Oregon site above says that this vitalism survives scientific scrutiny too, "in fact".

and it's amazing -- when an AANP affiliate is attempting to pass licensure legislation -- how coded and misrepresented all this science-ejected figmentation-based thought becomes.

PANP, for instance, states that naturopathy's principles are scientific and doesn't clearly communicate the science-ejected vitalism [and supernaturalism] at the heart of the naturopathic.

overall, what's not being admitted is the fact that science, for naturopathy, contains figmentations and in that sense, has been redefined to the point of absurdity.

A 'New' Homeopathic College in Toronto

the 2011-02-17 press release "Announcing The Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine" states:

"the Toronto School of Homeopathic Medicine (TSHM) is pleased to announce a new era [...] welcome the Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine (CCHM), a name [change] which compellingly reflects our commitment to excellence in training and preparing homeopathic practitioners for success in practice [...] the Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine (CCHM) will continue to uphold the highest standards of academic and clinical training [...] 'this is an extraordinary occasion for the College as it signals the growth and increased acceptance of homeopathy as a viable career choice. Our purpose continues to be focused on upholding the highest standards and training practitioners who can make a significant contribution to health care in their respective communities' [said] Raymond Edge, RSHom(NA), CCH, RCSHom Founder and Dean."

Note: meanwhile, back in reality...

I wonder how many cab fares in Toronto will end up at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine by accident.

If the FBI Went to Naturopathy School [and they should]

here, I muse on this idea: what if the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] went to naturopathy school.  What would FBI find?

001. a claim of science upon naturopathy, overall:

often  stated as "science-based natural medicine" or "all other branches of medical science" or "same basic bio-medical science foundation":

I've hyper-linked those three labels as search tools you can try.

002. that naturopathy is essentially a belief system, categorically:

based upon vitalism, teleology, and supernaturalism [purposeful life spirit, and kind].

003. such is hugely science-ejected and science-exterior, in fact [in the sense of decades and hundreds of years, actually].

004. so, what would the FBI have found?

I think, though I'm no lawyer, that it is called fraud at such an organized 'claimed as ethically professional' level.

It may merely be mostly falsehood, though.

Either way, it is harm in an unfair trade kind of manner.

.

The AANP President Whining About Science Bloggers' Criticisms (2011-02-16)

Hangee-Bauer, C. (ND Bastyr 1984) states in "President's Message: Science and Naturopathic Medicine" (2011-02-16) [and my musings]:

"I am no stranger to science. I still find it fascinating and appreciate the many ways it helps us understand the workings of nature and the world, helping us separate what appears to be the truth of things from reality [...] in school, I was a science geek and took every course in biology, chemistry, physics, etc., I could. When I went to college at Florida State University, my major was biology, with dual minors in chemistry and physics [...and he speaks of] the natural world around me [...and] natural settings."

So, we got science admittedly leading to knowledge about the natural, real world.

"Our medicine, as well as all other systems of medicine, are really a combination of science and art. When we work with our patients, we draw from both in order to stimulate the vis [!!!] and provide well-rounded care to our patients."

Ut-oh.  So, the vis appears.  This is naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic premise.  It couches all that is naturopathic.  And it truly is science-exterior, like naturopathy's supernaturalism.  Interesting that Hangee-Bauer's web page supposedly explaining naturopathy codes this concept. I, personally, think that's not enough information for the public to gauge naturopathy upon.  Vis should be clearly stated as the science-ejected medically irrelevant belief centered upon a figmentatious 'purposeful life spirit' which is believed to be responsible for physiology.  Then, informed consent could better happen.

"It has become an increasing concern to me when I read articles and blogs on the Internet [probably not my blog, perhaps Orac's] blasting naturopathic medicine for being 'unscientific' [...they're] biased misrepresentations of the truth. They often lambast our profession and philosophy as unscientific."

But, YOU just invoked vitalism as the centerpiece of the naturopathic, and your naturopathic philosophy that falsely places the label of science upon that which is not within science or supportable by science.  Please, stop whining.  The nonscientific status of the nonscientific is not bias, it's logical fact.

"As a student at Bastyr University, I remember Dr. Joe Pizzorno saying that if our profession is to be taken seriously by the larger world of medicine, we must speak in a language that everyone can understand and appreciate. That language is the language of science, and few have done more over the past 25 years than Dr. Pizzorno to increase the credibility of the naturopathic profession using this approach [...] when evaluating the efficacy of our therapies and approaches to practicing medicine, advancing the research and science agenda remains an important step for our profession to move forward, especially with the continued interest in evidence-based approaches to health care."

Ah, that great thinker ND Pizzorno who calls the science-ejected science [see his book Total Wellness].  In fact, Bastyr's whole 'science-based body mind spirit nature' nonsense is the hugest institutional irrationalism I've ever seen.

"On August 16, 2011, the Tuesday before the start of the 2011 AANP Convention, the AANP will be sponsoring a scientific summit."

Great.  Suggestion: invite the crew from the Science Based Medicine blog.  Have them objectively evaluate your current contents.  Gut what isn't medically scientific and is in fact science-ejected.  Look at what is left.  It won't be 'the naturopathic'.  It will be the areas of health care that stand alone anyway, and are scientifically supported.

Kansas vs. Darwin, Naturalism, Supernaturalism, Evolution, Naturopathy -- and Some Kansas Naturopathy

here, I cite from the 2007 film "Kansas vs. Darwin" [see 001., below]; then I draw parallels to naturopathy [see 002., below]; particularly equating the creationists' god-of-the-gaps argument with vitalists' vital-force-of-the-gaps one [see 003., below]; then, we visit some Kansas naturopathy [see 004., below]:

001. in "Kansas vs. Darwin" [the free stream will be up for a while]:

"[00.17.56 title] adoption of the minority report would insert a new definition of science into the teaching standards [...Kansas Citizens for Science member Harry McDonald, retired high school biology teacher] 'the problem is not what they say.  The problem is what they're leaving out, and the hay they're going to make as a result of leaving it out.  And they're specifically leaving out this reference that science deals with only natural explanations.  And they're specifically leaving it out because then that opens up the supernatural' [by unlimiting science...Pedro L. Irigonegaray, trial attorney, council for Science Standards Majority] 'that's absolutely illogical.  How can one understand whether or not there is a controversy in science if one doesn't understand at least what the scientific process is? [...] intelligent design requires a designer [...] supernatural [...] ultimately it is god [...] their perspective of god' [claimed as universally true, of course...KCS Jack Krebs] 'they're also attacking this bigger idea that in fact the things that we don't know about the past can be filled in with supernatural explanations' [00.26.45, the 'god-of-the-gaps' argument...00.28.59] the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC is considered to be the chief scientific authority in the United States and most of the world [...] Bruce Alberts, PhD. President, National Academy of Sciences [...science] 'doesn't involve supernaturalism [...] the reason why science is successful and has transformed our societies and our lives, and improved our health, is we insist as we explore the world there must be an natural explanation for this [...it's not about inserting] god [...essentially giving up looking because] then of course you'll never find out the answers because you only work hard to find out an answer when you believe there is one, that there is a natural explanation.  Always in the past, no matter how hard the question, we've found natural explanations. We need to keep that the centerpiece of science' [...] [00.31.40 Burt Humburg] 'you don't promote a scientific theory by appealing to state boards of education.  If their was any validity to intelligent design, they would be publishing their work [science peer-review], they would be convincing people just by sheer weight of the utility of their ideas' [adoption]."

Note: so, there's the redefinition of science, opening up science to supernaturalism while naturalism is an essence of science.  There's the claim of science-expertise without scientific expertise, there's imposition of sectarian belief, god-of-the-gap, and science-by-decree not by its usual processes.  Boy, a lot of this resonates with me in relation to naturopathy.

002. and so:

002.a. naturopathy claims that the supernatural is science, therein redefining science:

yet, it's called "natural".  So, there is an ultimately supernatural basis for the natural, according the lead expert on so-called "science-based natural medicine", Joe Pizzorno (ND NCNM), who states that naturopath's centerpiece idea is "spirit" [supernatural].

002.b. there's the claim of science-expertise all-the-while:

Pizzorno is a microcosm of that.

002.c. there's the overall sectarian belief set claiming objective scientific fact status:

OBNM is a good example.

003. naturopathy's vital-force-of-the-gaps, via MD Novella in the Teaching Company lecture "Myths about Acupuncture’s Past and Benefits: Lecture 17" from the 2010 course "Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us" [which I highly recommend]:

"[00.02.17] the Chinese have a concept for life energy which is called chi [...] life energy [...] this notion of a life energy is not unique to China or to Eastern cultures. In Sanskrit, there is mention of a life energy called prana. The Greeks had a notion of life energy that they called pneuma [...] the Romans had spiritus. [...] life energy is an interesting concept. It’s often referred to as vitalism or the vitalistic force, the force that makes living things different from nonliving things [...] this notion of vitalism was eliminated from the science of biology about 150 years ago. Essentially, vitalistic explanations were used to explain aspects of biology that we didn’t currently understand. Whatever process that we didn’t know how it happened we invoked vitalism as the explanation. But eventually it simply became unnecessary -- once we had anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry enough to explain the functions of life. Life energy simply became superfluous. It always was little more than a placeholder. There was no evidence for life energy; it simply was the default explanation that was used until biological sciences advanced sufficiently [00.04.12]".

Note: replace the science-exterior idea of god with naturopathy's science-exterior vital force, and you have an as-sectarian figmentation falsely posing science, as in the film - the god-of-the-gaps becomes in naturopathy a vital-force-of-the-gaps.  How naturopathy gets away with falsely labeling what is more than 100-years-ago science-ejected as science and trading on that circumstance both in terms of the education apparatus and clinically, well, that's a miracle.

004. Kansas naturopathy:

004.a. the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts states in "Kansas Statutes Annotated and Kansas Administrative Regulations Relating to the Practice of Naturopathy Revised January 2011":

"[the ND / NMD must have] passed an examination approved by the board covering appropriate naturopathic subjects including basic and clinical sciences [..] (1) basic sciences, including the following:(A) anatomy; (B) biochemistry; (C) microbiology; (D) pathology; and (E) physiology; and (2) clinical sciences, including the following: (A) emergency medicine and public health; (B) laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging; (C) botanical medicine; (D) clinical nutrition; (E) physical and clinical diagnosis; (F) physical medicine; (G) psychology; (H) counseling; (I) ethics; and (J) homeopathy."

Note: the science claims are LARGE -- pannaturopathic -- and just the claim of science upon homeopathy alone is indicative of the nonscience that this claimed science status is.

004.b. I've posted previously:

in "State of Kansas BHA-NAC Members' Naturopathic Absurdity: Homeopathy As 'Science'", if you want more detail.

004.c. but, for some immediate sectarian vitalism-supernaturalism, see "About Our Clinic" by NDs Khosh and Beneda which states:

"our philosophy is based on the six principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) [...] the body has more innate healing power than all medicine in history. We call this power the life force, and foremost, we cultivate its restorative processes. [#2] Tolle causam (identify and treat the cause): symptoms are an expression of the life force [...] we strive to promote balance, creativity, optimal health and wellness in the patient’s life on the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual realms [...] good health is the harmonious interrelation of physical, emotional, spiritual, environmental, social, and genetic factors."

Note: so, now the natural includes the supernatural science-exterior and vitalistic science-exterior.  All, of course, claimed by the State of Kansas board as science.  Fascinating, science by decree but false.  Yes, "the problem is what they're leaving out" and it is quite "illogical": actual science, and information concerning where naturopathy lies; the fact that someing cannot be within what excludes it.

The "Life Force" of Naturopathy's "Therapeutic Order": Therapeutic Science-Ejected Vitalism Figmentation Nonsense

here, I search Google.com for naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic figmentation-based treatment context and report the first-page results [see 001., below]:

001. a 2011-02-12 google.com web search per "therapeutic order "life force"" [without the exterior quotes] results in these first-page hits, which are ALL naturopathic:

001.a. "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-08] which states:

"the precepts that guide the practice of naturopathic medicine include [...] the therapeutic order [...] use modalities to [...] harmonize life force."

Note: this is Strom, M. (NMD SCNM).  Interesting that HPN is not explicitly revealed as that life force on that page.  And, of course, we're told the opposite of what life force actually is on that page.  We're told it's within science.

001.b. the free sample chapter of the Textbook of Natural Medicine: "Chapter 3: A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order:The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-13] which states vitalism galore, but I'll be brief per:

"many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [p.036...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034...our] therapeutic order [...requires] harmonize with your life force [p.035...] an entire physiologic system [includes] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.036]."

Note: this is the central textbook of naturopathy, edited by NDs Pizzorno and Murray, with the chapter written by NDs Snider, Zeff, and Myers.  Interesting that now the science known as physiology contains the nonscientific / science-exterior / science-ejected belief of 'purposeful life spirit.'  Really nuts.  Even nuttier, on p.028 we're told that naturopathy is "science-based".

001.c. "Naturopathic Therapeutic Order" [vsc 2010-06-10] which states:

"stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae (other names for 'vis' include 'qi', 'prana', 'life force'). This is the force [Luke!] that moves us towards health; it is the essence that invigorates us. Some modalities that we utilize to stimulate the 'vis' include hydrotherapy, exercise, yoga, mediation, craniosacral therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy."

Note: this is Maiella, E.C. (ND Bastyr 2006), and what a beautiful equation of vitalistic aliases.  Nothing like crap therapies to treat a figmentation.  And it's interesting that her naturopathy definition page codes this vitalism.  You gotta dig to get to their essence, literally.

001.d. in "Tara Johnie Shelby ND, LM" [vsc 2009-12-15] which states:

"naturopathic therapeutic order: stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae (other names for 'vis' include 'qi', 'prana', 'life force') This is the force that moves us towards health; it is the essence that invigoratesus. Some modalities that we utilize to stimulate the 'vis' include hydrotherapy, exercise, yoga, mediation, craniosacral therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy."

Note: this is Shelby, T.J. (ND Bastyr 2008).

001.e. in "Naturopathic Therapeutic Order" and "Naturopathic Medicine and The Evolving Paradigm Shift Towards Holistic Healthcare" and "Why Naturopathy?" [all vsc 2011-02-13]:

"address weakened or damaged systems or organs (via botanical medicine, homeopathy, orthomolecular nutrients, glandulars, homeopathy, and other minimally invasive, safe, natural therapies) [...] harmonize life force."

Note: this is Kupperman, S. (ND SCNM).  She likely meant hydrotherapy for one of these homeopathys.

001.f. in "Naturopathic Physical Medicine: Theory and Practice for Manual Therapists" [2008, ISBN 0443103909; which I also own]:

"the therapeutic order [...includes] harmonize the life force".

Note: this is Chaitow, L. (ND).

001.g. in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-13] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process. The practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere: illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process [...] the therapeutic order is the basic approach that naturopathic physicians use to guide their patients to wellness [...#3] harmonize life forces."

So, there's the vitalism galore of naturopathy.

And, as naturopathy does, there is a claim upon all this nonscience of science on that page per:

"is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes [...] these principles [the 'purposeful life spirit' and kind] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

Note: this is Ferchoff, R. (ND SCNM) and Thurston, T. (ND NCNM).  So, that's the whole nonsense shebang: science-based science-ejected nonsense.

Naturopathy At Griffin Hospital (Derby, CT), Transparent Definition, and Suggestions For Research

here, out of curiosity, I searched the web pages of Griffin Hospital [GH] regarding naturopathy and these are the findings [see 001., below]; then, I tell you what Griffin doesn't tell you about naturopathy, because I value informed consent [see 002., below]; finally, I suggest some research items [see 003., below]:

001. GH writes:

Note: I searched their site per "site:griffinhealth.org naturopathic" and "site:griffinhealth.org naturopathy", without the quotes, via google.com.

001.a. in "Diagnostic Services" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"Integrative Medicine [IM] Center.  The IMC offers dual evaluation by physicians, trained in internal and preventive medicine, and naturopathic physicians [NP] with expertise in a wide array of natural [N], complementary and alternative [CA] therapies. We produce treatment and referral recommendations across the full spectrum of natural and conventional care. For more information contact: 203-732-1370."

Note: there's IM subset NP / N / CA.

001.b. in "The Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hospital presents 'Naturopathic Approaches to Pain Management'" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"on Thursday, June 24, 2010 [...] the Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hospital will present Naturopathic Approaches to Pain Management, presented by naturopathic resident, Dr. Barbara Siminovich [...] a first-year Integrative Medicine resident at Griffin Hospital and the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, and serves as a research assistant at the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center [...who] graduated in 2009 from the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine in Bridgeport, CT. She is licensed by the Connecticut Department of Public Health [...it's] free and open to the public [...] naturopathic approaches to pain management that are alternative or complimentary to conventional methods, including the use of herbal remedies and supplements, following an anti-inflammatory diet, hydrotherapy, exercise, acupuncture, massage, chiropractic and craniosacral therapy [CST]."

Note: so, mention of their partners UBCNM and CDPH, plus some therapeutic nonsense like CST.  Who knew that pharmacognosy, medical nutrition, diet, massage and exercise are CAM.  I'll bet their efficacy claims have been hokey'd up, CAM-style.

001.c. in "Meet the Staff" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"Ather Ali, ND, MPH.  Assistant Director, CAM Research/Co-Director, Integrative Medicine Center [...] he oversees naturopathic care and education. He is an associate research scientist at the Yale School of Medicine [...] Dr. Ali completed a [...] doctorate in naturopathic medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, residency in Integrative Family Medicine from Griffin Hospital and the University of Bridgeport, and a Masters of Public Health in Chronic Disease Epidemiology from the Yale School of Public Health. He completed a NIH/NCCAM National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Fellowship and is part of the leadership board of Integrative Medicine at Yale."

Note: ah, that claim of science upon the naturopathic.  Poor Yale, how they slum.  Ah, Bastyr.  And UB naturopathy again.  And the NCCAM.

001.d. in "April Showers Bring May Flowers...and Allergies" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"on Thursday, May 20, 2010 [...] the Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hospital will present 'April Showers Bring May Flowers…and Allergies,' presented by naturopathic resident, Dr. Lisa Rosenberger [...] both naturopathic and Chinese medicine principles and approaches will be brought to the discussion [...] Dr. Rosenberger is a second-year Integrative Medicine resident at Griffin Hospital and the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine and a research assistant for the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. She is a graduate of the National College of Natural Medicine in Portland, OR [...] Dr. Rosenberger is a licensed naturopathic physician by the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine."

Note: so, there's naturopathic principles mentioned, NCNM, OBNM. Those will come in handy to help explain what GH doesn't publicly  mention.

001.e.  in "Time Change for Free Cooking and Nutrition Class for Cancer Patients Beginning June 2" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital is offering a free four-week Cooking and Nutrition program [...] the program is team-taught by a chef, a clinical dietitian, and a naturopathic physician."

001.f.  in "The Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center Newsflash July 2010" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"Ather Ali, ND, MPH, Assistant Director of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research at the PRC and Co-Director of the Integrative Medicine Center [...] Chronic Disease Prevention: Research Review of Naturopathic Approaches on May 22nd at the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians CME Conference."

Note: so there's mention of the NYANP.

001.g. in "The Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hospital presents Women's Health - Everything You've Always Wanted to Know...But Were Afraid to Ask!" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"on Thursday, July 22, 2010 [...] the Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hospital will present [this talk...] this talk will be presented by  [...in part] Dr. Lisa Rosenberger [...] both naturopathic and Chinese medicine principles and approaches will be brought to the discussion [...] Dr. Rosenberger graduated in 2008 from the National College of Natural Medicine in Portland, OR."

Note: naturopathic principles and NCNM again.

001.h. in "The Campaign for Breast Wellness" [vsc 2011-02-12]:

"Integrative Medicine Center - as a supplement to traditional treatment, the Center offers a variety of non-traditional therapies to help ease possible pain, nausea, and stress. A team of physicians, nurse practitioners and naturopathic physicians work directly with you to develop treatment plans based on your needs and preference."

Note: seems to demand informed consent, upon the 'team' preponderance.

002. a transparent definition of naturopathy's context via:

Note: I don't find a definition of naturopathy at the GH site.  The CDPH and NCCAM aren't all that helpful either.  But, there's UBCNM, NCNM, Bastyr, NYANP and OBNM.

002.a. UBCNM:

you can find naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic premise archived here, and their current opaque definition here, and a science label upon all this science-exterior sectarian crap currently here.

Note: the actual context of naturopathy is pseudoscience: the quite irrational position of falsely claiming as science what EASILY isn't science at all.  GH didn't mention that, by the way.

002.b. NCNM:

on a single web page labels the hugely science-ejected as scientific.  Again, pseudoscience.

002.c. Bastyr:

in a single sweep labels as science the supernatural, coded vitalistic therein equating all knowledge types irrationally.  Superpseudoscience.

002.d. NYANP:

has in the past transparently related naturopathy's vitalistic essence, though now codes it.  This manipulative opacity / dysinformation is inherent to naturopathy's cultic nature.  I think they want licensure in NY this year, so vitalism has been swept under the rug.

002.e. OBNM:

of course takes the prize for being the '.gov' Rosetta Stone that reveals all of the nonsense that is essential to naturopathy.

Note: you could, also, use naturopathy's printed textbooks, like:

the 3rd ed. of the Textbook of Natural Medicine

or Lloyd's History of Naturopathic Medicine.

That's not just cyberspace nonsense, it's nonsense bound and here in meatspace.

003. research suggestions:

principally, I'd like to see naturopathy establish the scientific basis of what's profoundly nonscientific.

yes, it is THAT absurd -- akin to claiming it's a scientific fact that the world is flat.

so, we ask simply, now prove it naturopaTHICKists.  It's quite a challenge to undo logic, and somehow get something to be what it can never be.  Naturopathy should start with its vitalism and supernaturalism -- the essentially naturopathic.

you've got huge science claims upon that nonscience and what I see in it all is:

licensed falsehood, unprofessionalism, and false trade.

Ben Goldacre on Evidence, and An Extension onto Naturopathy:

here, I cite from the Guardian's column "Bad Science" [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Ben Goldacre writes in "Don't Cherry-Pick NHS Findings, Minister" (2011-02-12):

"so the minister has cherry-picked only the good findings [...] he cherry-picks findings he likes while explicitly claiming that he is fairly [resembles 'objectively'] citing the totality of the evidence [again, 'objectivity'] from a thorough analysis [as in 'comprehensive']. I [too] can produce good evidence that I have a magical two-headed coin, if I simply disregard all the throws where it comes out tails [oh snap!...] it's absolutely fine [for politicians] to make policy based on ideology, whim, faith, principles, and all the other things we are used to [...] and it's absolutely fine if your reforms aren't supported by existing evidence: you just shouldn't claim that they are [because that would be false]."

Note: oh how this reminds me of naturopathy!

002. musing:

naturopathy is based on principles, including "[#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the body's inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent, to heal itself. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery, and to facilitate and augment this healing ability" [and that's ALL you get].  But, that's some very cherry-picked language, not honoring 'informed consent' / transparency concerning naturopathy's essential premise, in my view.  But, that's Bastyr for you: posing science, coding nonscience.

so, we hop a little south to Oregon and find more information on these principles from the mother-ship, and therein we're told by NCNM: "[#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."

ah, so it's vitalism that Bastyr is CODING / hiding and NCNM is relating transparently.  And vitalism is hugely science-ejected [not to mention the supernaturalism on both of these pages].  There simply is no life force scientifically speaking: it is an article of faith / an ideology / a figmentation! 

and guess what!  NCNM [quite moronically] claims that such [their vitalism, supernaturalism and kind] is "in fact" on that page, and that such surivives scientific scrutiny.

as they say, 'you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.'

now, a long time ago I got led into naturopathy by a similar manipulation:

 

the AANP and their schools, including Bastyr and NCNM, said [see the jpg above, which I printed in 1997 and then attended UB in 1998; it's archived here] that naturopathy was "science-based" and "not a belief system." Here it is as a rather blurry video screencapture from Archive.org [vsc 2011-02-12]:

the falsehood continues, and it is about 15 years later.

AANP's Blog and NMJ Postures 'Myth vs. Fact, Fact vs. Fiction' – So Let Us Too, Pannaturopathically

here, I cite from a recent post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog and a release about their journal [see 001., below]; and then I follow their 'myth-fact' model to its logical conclusion [see 002., below]:

001. the AANP writes:

001.a. in the blog post “It’s Time to Bust the Myths About Chocolate” (2011-02-11) by ND Bishop:

“enjoy your chocolate your way, since only you can be the true judge [...after presenting a bunch of] myth [...and] fact [...and the sidebar states]  'Physicians Who Listen' [PWL] is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] national professional society  […] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [IHA; coded vitalism].”

001.b. in "Natural Medicine Journal Helps Clinicians and Patients Sort Fact From Fiction" (2011-01-18):

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically valid, patient-centered, peer-reviewed health care information to the medical community [...] when it comes to the field of natural medicine, it's not always easy to discern the credible and reliable research from the unsubstantiated claims [(my irony meter has exploded)...] the go-to resource for cutting-edge information [...for] scientifically valid, patient-centered healthcare information [...] to maintain quality of content, clinical articles go through a rigorous peer-review proces [...] 'the discerning eyes of experts' [...] the journal's high-quality content [...an] extensive editorial board [...] many of the foremost leaders in integrative medicine [...published by] Karolyn A. Gazella, in partnership with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] launch[ed] Natural Medicine Journal [...] Tina Kaczor, ND,  FABNO [is] the journal's medical editor."

002. let's decode IHA and see where it stands in relation to science:

002.a. IHA is the concept of vitalism, if you look at naturopathy preponderantly:

I'm not sure how a group can be professional if they can't be transparent about their essential sectarian belief / figmentation.

Note: you'll notice that naturopathy claims that that life force is “in fact”.

002.b. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, in fact:

so, in naturopathyland, facts and myths / fictions are conflated.  Yet, they'll pretend they delineate at their convenience, as with that PWL post.  I'm not sure how a group can be professional if their essential claims are false and their mannerisms are so opaque

In such a context of knowledge conflation, I find the NMJ's language preposterous.